Patterson’s appointment was an egregious...

older than both those distinguished Guyanese who were deemed not ‘fit and proper’ to serve because of their age. Like Justice Patterson, both Justices Kennard and Persaud were high court judges. Both of them served as judges in the Appeals Court and Justice Kennard was a Chancellor of the Judiciary. So what makes Justice Patterson “fit and proper” when Granger himself has told Guyanese that age matters?

Outside of the age concern, he also showed that some of the “fit and proper” qualifications that he himself outlined appear to disqualify Patterson also. In a June 3 Kaieteur News article, it is reported that Granger outlined various characteristics that he considers qualify a person as “fit and proper”. Among those is this gem: The person will not be an activist in any form (gender, racial, religious, etc). Mr Patterson is a practising pastor which makes him a religious activist. Again, for me, this is not an important factor in rendering a person fit and proper. The person’s religion or even if he is a religious leader, a pastor, a pandit, a moulvi does not matter. But it is Mr Granger who made it a requirement. Why is Mr Patterson exempt from this Granger-imposed requirement for fit and proper?

It has become clear that Granger always intended to appoint the Chairman in his own deliberate judgment, abrogating the constitutional requirements. From the start, he knew who he was going to appoint and he played the nation in a reckless game.

Silence is not an option.

Yours faithfully, Leslie Ramsammy